Risk in design and build
Brewer, G.
Risk in design and build - 2003 - Contract Journal 418(6424) 30 April 2003, 25(1) .
Looks at whether the allocation of risk in design and build contracts is adopting guaranteed maximum price provisions. In "Mowlem plc v Newton Street Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 737 (TCC), [2003] CILL 2002), the parties entered into a contract for the conversion of a former office into flats using JCT WCD 1998, with an extensive amendment to Art 10. Delay and additional costs arose when concrete works failed, which Newton (N) claimed lay within the contractual scheme for risk allocation and that the losses lay entirely with Mowlem (M). The dispute went to arbitration and a subsequent appeal. M's appeal failed as the judge found the provisions of Art 10 very clearly allocated the burden of unforeseen or unknown risks on M. Concludes courts will usually not interfere with risk allocation clauses, unambiguously written into construction contracts, by which the risk of unforeseen events lie with the contractor.
RISK ALLOCATION
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
MOWLEM PLC V NEWTON STREET LTD
DESIGN AND BUILD
JCT STANDARD FORM OF BUILDING CONTRACT WITH CONTRACTORS DESIGN (1998 EDITION)
Risk in design and build - 2003 - Contract Journal 418(6424) 30 April 2003, 25(1) .
Looks at whether the allocation of risk in design and build contracts is adopting guaranteed maximum price provisions. In "Mowlem plc v Newton Street Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 737 (TCC), [2003] CILL 2002), the parties entered into a contract for the conversion of a former office into flats using JCT WCD 1998, with an extensive amendment to Art 10. Delay and additional costs arose when concrete works failed, which Newton (N) claimed lay within the contractual scheme for risk allocation and that the losses lay entirely with Mowlem (M). The dispute went to arbitration and a subsequent appeal. M's appeal failed as the judge found the provisions of Art 10 very clearly allocated the burden of unforeseen or unknown risks on M. Concludes courts will usually not interfere with risk allocation clauses, unambiguously written into construction contracts, by which the risk of unforeseen events lie with the contractor.
RISK ALLOCATION
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
MOWLEM PLC V NEWTON STREET LTD
DESIGN AND BUILD
JCT STANDARD FORM OF BUILDING CONTRACT WITH CONTRACTORS DESIGN (1998 EDITION)